2018 Draft Thread I

[StevenK]

23 minutes ago, 757-NINER said:

I said this from day 1....Edmunds seems more suited for SAM. He could eventually move inside to MIKE but right now he'd be better lined up over the TE. Same with VDE. If gou want a Mike who can hit the ground running, you gotta get Smith. You want versatility/physical specimen with upside, you want Edmunds.

I agree about Edmunds, but I think I’m hesitant about him now lol. Like a lot of ppl mentioned he’s raw, just like Davenport. I would rather go the Smith route. 

[Ronnie's Pinky]

3 minutes ago, StevenK said:

I agree about Edmunds, but I think I’m hesitant about him now lol. Like a lot of ppl mentioned he’s raw, just like Davenport. I would rather go the Smith route. 

Edmunds is a better bet than Davenport, though. They're both in need of refinement, but Tremaine played and produced at a high level against ACC competition, while Davenport did his thing against nobodies in CUSA.

I'm starting to warm up to going for the home run with Edmunds. I don't think the 49ers are quite at the level yet where a lower-upside draft-and-play guy like Roquan makes more sense than taking a shot on a high-upside guy with more risk. I think Roquan will be very good, but Edmunds could redefine the position.

[Forge]

27 minutes ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

Edmunds is a better bet than Davenport, though. They're both in need of refinement, but Tremaine played and produced at a high level against ACC competition, while Davenport did his thing against nobodies in CUSA.

I'm starting to warm up to going for the home run with Edmunds. I don't think the 49ers are quite at the level yet where a lower-upside draft-and-play guy like Roquan makes more sense than taking a shot on a high-upside guy with more risk. I think Roquan will be very good, but Edmunds could redefine the position.

That's just mean. One of those guys is probably your future accountant in 3 years. 

[Ftn49]

On ‎04‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 1:22 AM, N4L said:

Foster could play WILL simply because he is so talented but imo he is a much better MIKE. Having him anywhere else would be a mistake. You are right about the fact he could play in a 34 scheme, he is excellent at navigating traffic and making tackles. 

Roquan Smith on the other hand would be a terrible fit for the 34. He would be a good fit here as the WILL but will struggle anywhere else. He isn't going to be great in coverage in the NFL. If we draft him as 'fosters replacement' that would be a huge mistake as they play completely different positions. 

The more I think about it, the more I don't think roquan will go in the top 15. The closer we get the more my gut says he won't be a 49er. 

Uh... you realize he was the butkus award winner as the best linebacker in college football on a team that plays a base 34 right?

[757-NINER]

9 hours ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

Edmunds is a better bet than Davenport, though. They're both in need of refinement, but Tremaine played and produced at a high level against ACC competition, while Davenport did his thing against nobodies in CUSA.

I'm starting to warm up to going for the home run with Edmunds. I don't think the 49ers are quite at the level yet where a lower-upside draft-and-play guy like Roquan makes more sense than taking a shot on a high-upside guy with more risk. I think Roquan will be very good, but Edmunds could redefine the position.

Lower-upside? Just because Smith is the more polished player doesn't mean his ceiling isn't through the roof. Smith could be one of the best ILB in all of football in a few years. He's one of the best pure talents in the draft. There is no lower upside. He just doesn't physically match up with what Edmunds has to offer. If Foster were in this draft, neither would he. But you can't measure instincts, ability to read/diagnosis and finding the ball at the right time. Those are traits both Foster and Smith possess that Edmunds does not. And traits he may never develop. 

And aside from Foster's legal troubles, I was never really sold on him being able to stay healthy playing the MIKE for an extended period of time. So from that aspect alone, Smith makes alot of sense if Lynch & Co have durability concerns going forward.

[oldman9er]

So much comes down to the interviews... predictions of character development and work ethic. 

Would be fun for the fans, if we could watch interview footage, lol. In today's invasive advancements, maybe we'll have to wait till next year for this, lol. 

[NcFinest9erFan]

 

 

[49erurtaza]

http://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/2018-49ers-pre-draft-tracker

We have only brought in basically WRs,C,DE,LB,CB,S

[49erurtaza]

 

[NcFinest9erFan]

 

 

[Chrissooner49er]

4 minutes ago, NcFinest9erFan said:

 

 

Darn! I like Vander Esch almost as much as Edmunds and Smith...crazy, right?! Can the prospects visit next week or is Draft Week off limits for visits?

[J-ALL-DAY]

I like Vander Esch better than Edmunds but less than Smith. He's a prime candidate if we trade down. 

[big9erfan]

Edmunds vs Smith is a really hard one. No one in the world would consider taking Allen over Darnold or Rosen if it weren't for potential.  Potential matters. Statistically over the past two years Edmunds had more TFLs (30.5 vs 19) and sacks (10 vs 6.5)  than Smith and  not too many fewer tackles (202 vs 232).  You could factor Edmunds numbers up a bit because he played 26 games compared to Smith's 28.  Maybe those differences simply reflect how their teams played them. For all intents and purposes their output was pretty similar (although personally I like the greater number of sacks and TFLs vs tackles). As for speed, again they are essentially equal with Smith clocking .03 faster in the 40. Ah, but size. Edmunds is 4 inches taller, and has arms that are 2.5 inches longer giving him a "reach advantage" of 6.5 inches. That's about as big as it gets. And he's about 20 pounds heaver. At that speed/size combo he has a lot more position versatility than Smith. Now consider the mind boggling fact that he is still just a teenager when a lot of red-shirted seniors coming out are 23.There's enormous potential there! Having said all that as someone already pointed out Smith is/was the best ILB in the country last year. He's probably second on my "can't miss" list after Nelson. Will be interesting to see how the team evaluates them, or if they even take LB. Maybe they want one of the two and one gets taken ahead of our pick and they won't end up having to choose. That would save us potential second guessing if they end up having to choose.

[757-NINER]

I get why some like Edmunds over Smith and vice versa. Its just a matter of what the brass feel better suits this scheme and our needs. Edmunds isnt ready to be a MIKE as a rookie IMO. His read and recognition just isnt there yet. But I think you could start him off@SAM and work on some of his rawness and he could eventually slide over to MIKE once he develops. And from a coverage aspect he fits the zone type of defense we run perfectly, lined up on the strong side. 

Alot of ppl question Smith's ability to play MIKE at the next level because he struggles shedding blocks. I don't. Its a concern yes, but if you have peices upfront to keep O-Lineman off of him, which i think we do, he will be a TFL machine as a pro. Just like Edmunds, if you want to start him off as a WILL and work him inside as he gets more comfortable is not a bad look. But i think his range and instincts is what you need in the middle of the field eventually. I wouldn't be mad with either player and could certainly see why they chose one over the other. I don't think we lose, either way.

As Ive stated before, not as big on LVE as most around here. I just dont see a MIKE at the next level. His good tape is good but his bad film is really alarming for a guy that big and athletic. He only works as a SAM in our scheme for my money. Like Edmunds he is raw and could develop as well but his tape pales in camparsion to Edmunds and didn't play with the same edge and physicality I thought Edmunds displayed. Just my 2 cents...

[Forge]

9 minutes ago, 757-NINER said:

I get why some like Edmunds over Smith and vice versa. Its just a matter of what the brass feel better suits this scheme and our needs. Edmunds isnt ready to be a MIKE as a rookie IMO. His read and recognition just isnt there yet. But I think you could start him off@SAM and work on some of his rawness and he could eventually slide over to MIKE once he develops. And from a coverage aspect he fits the zone type of defense we run perfectly, lined up on the strong side. 

Alot of ppl question Smith's ability to play MIKE at the next level because he struggles shedding blocks. I don't. Its a concern yes, but if you have peices upfront to keep O-Lineman off of him, which i think we do, he will be a TFL machine as a pro. Just like Edmunds, if you want to start him off as a WILL and work him inside as he gets more comfortable is not a bad look. But i think his range and instincts is what you need in the middle of the field eventually. I wouldn't be mad with either player and could certainly see why they chose one over the other. I don't think we lose, either way.

As Ive stated before, not as big on LVE as most around here. I just dont see a MIKE at the next level. His good tape is good but his bad film is really alarming for a guy that big and athletic. He only works as a SAM in our scheme for my money. Like Edmunds he is raw and could develop as well but his tape pales in camparsion to Edmunds and didn't play with the same edge and physicality I thought Edmunds displayed. Just my 2 cents...

I've said it before - I'm not even sure I want Edmunds at MIKE to be honest. I think you could make use of him in other ways that would make him worth the selection, particularly as a potential pass rusher (either from the SAM similar to Bruce Irvin, or even from an edge sometimes)